4 ms·

Market theories don't claim everyone makes efficient decisions just that over time, people tend to pay for their inefficiencies. In contrast, systems based on s

Market theories don't claim everyone makes efficient decisions just that over time, people tend to pay for their inefficiencies. In contrast, systems based on status, family lineage, etc, provide little to no natural force against similar inefficiencies.

wbsss4412 4y ago
The gap between the actual theories and the popular conception is what I’m commenting on. Note that these theories are actually generally descriptive, no one wholesale invented capitalism. For the entirety of human history we have had systems based on a combination of markets, status, family lineage, etc. this applies both to the past and to today. What I’m taking issue with is the degree to which all of that is glossed over and people assume that the market will evolve naturally if left unspoiled/untouched.
sudosysgen 4y ago
There are plenty of market theories that claim that in the long run decisions will converge towards an optimum. In practice, this is a tautology. People pay for inefficiencies, but inefficiencies are defined as what lose money. You didn't say anything, you just diluted a (wrong) theory to make it correct and as a result don't have a theory anymore, just a rhetorical trick.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
  > There are plenty of market theories that claim that in the long run decisions will converge towards an optimum. Do you have an example of an economist making that argument, outside of theoretical modeling? I don't see the tautology. One person in a leadership position may value certain things and be willing to lose money on them. The cost gives their peers and supervisors at least one reason to question that practice.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The tautology is that business inefficiencies are costs, either future, current, or comparative. Saying that inefficiencies will be punished in the long term is tautological, you're just restating the definition business inefficiencies. As far as economists making that argument, take a look at the strong and semi-strong EMH. Plenty of economists agree with the semi-strong version.

wbsss4412 4y ago

The gap between the actual theories and the popular conception is what I’m commenting on. Note that these theories are actually generally descriptive, no one wholesale invented capitalism. For the entirety of human history we have had systems based on a combination of markets, status, family lineage, etc. this applies both to the past and to today. What I’m taking issue with is the degree to which all of that is glossed over and people assume that the market will evolve naturally if left unspoiled/untouched.

sudosysgen 4y ago

There are plenty of market theories that claim that in the long run decisions will converge towards an optimum. In practice, this is a tautology. People pay for inefficiencies, but inefficiencies are defined as what lose money. You didn't say anything, you just diluted a (wrong) theory to make it correct and as a result don't have a theory anymore, just a rhetorical trick.

sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
> There are plenty of market theories that claim that in the long run decisions will converge towards an optimum. Do you have an example of an economist making that argument, outside of theoretical modeling? I don't see the tautology. One person in a leadership position may value certain things and be willing to lose money on them. The cost gives their peers and supervisors at least one reason to question that practice.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The tautology is that business inefficiencies are costs, either future, current, or comparative. Saying that inefficiencies will be punished in the long term is tautological, you're just restating the definition business inefficiencies. As far as economists making that argument, take a look at the strong and semi-strong EMH. Plenty of economists agree with the semi-strong version.